'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
Ivor The Engine wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:53:41 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference
between 30 and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras
do you see in 30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise
enough revenue. It is that level of cynicism that has brought them into
disrepute.

Do you have numbers to back up that claim? A quick scan of my GPS
speed camera data lists 2715 fixed cameras in 30MPH zones out of a
total of 3507. I'm not claiming perfect accuracy but it certainly
implies more than your "very few" observation.

How many of those are on dual carriageways that are only technically urban
areas?

As an example in Southampton the only ones I can think of are all on dual
carriageways.

Mind you in Southampton the major problem is not speeding so much as jumping
red lights, I'm all in favour of traffic light cameras.


In the part of Lancashire where I live many villages have 30MPH
cameras to slow cars coming off faster country roads.

Locally the preference seems to be for the speed measuring electronic signs
which have supplanted former fixed cameras so it may be a regional thing.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

There are many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the
cause of some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people have
to respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real difference
that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference between 30
and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras do you see in
30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise enough revenue. It is
that level of cynicism that has brought them into disrepute.

I reckon that I encounter more speed cameras in 30 limits than any other
limits. Cheshire police often set up a mobile camera a couple of miles
from where I live, to protect a 30 limit on the A54. The nearest fixed
cameras to where I live protect 40 limits. T'other day I went to
Stalybridge and the cameras I encountered (as far as I can recall them)
were protecting limits of 60, 50, 30, 30, 30, 30, 50, 50, 60
respectively. Cheshire's not so bad for them, but there seem to be a
superfluity in Staffs.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683756.html
(142 093 at Cardiff Central, 30 Jun 1999)

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

It is still a simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted the
perception of what is safe. As far as the cameras are concerned an idiot
driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving all over the
road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady 60mph on a road designed
for 70+ but somebody has decided to designated as a 50 limit for no logical
reason is defined as driving dangerously.


There are many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the
cause of some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people
have to respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real
difference that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference
between 30 and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras
do you see in 30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise
enough revenue. It is that level of cynicism that has brought them into
disrepute.

I reckon that I encounter more speed cameras in 30 limits than any other
limits. Cheshire police often set up a mobile camera a couple of miles from
where I live, to protect a 30 limit on the A54. The nearest fixed cameras
to where I live protect 40 limits. T'other day I went to Stalybridge and
the cameras I encountered (as far as I can recall them) were protecting
limits of 60, 50, 30, 30, 30, 30, 50, 50, 60 respectively.

How many of those 30mph limits were genuine urban areas with
houses/shops/schools and pedestrians in close proximity and how many were on
through routes that just happened to be in the appropriate urban sanitary
district?

Cheshire's not so bad for them, but there seem to be a superfluity in
Staffs.


Different areas do things differently it seems.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

You need to get that message across to the so-called Taxpayers' Alliance,
who have been suggesting that speed cameras have increased the number of
casualties:


I suspect the Taxpayer’s Alliance primary objection to speed cameras
is more down to the revenue raising aspects rather than perceptions on
safety.

Anyway, that argument could easily be challenged if more authorities
(as my local authority does) were to take a more lenient line over
minor first offences by offering the option for the driver to attend a
speed awareness course and thus avoid any points or fines.

I have seen at first hand how a local dual carriageway has been
transformed from death valley (the local paramedics term of choice)
into a civilised 50 mph highway thanks entirely to speed cameras.

There can be no denying that for the unsafe roads that now have them
there has been a quite dramatic fall in body count.

However, overall road deaths and injuries statistics do remain
stubbornly high and therefore should raise questions about the
effectiveness of speed cameras that quite possibly, rather like
burglar alarms, could be just moving the problem on elsewhere.

As a driver of many years, I don’t know how other drivers feel but in
recent years, parallel with the spread of the cameras, my perception,
for what it’s worth, has been that driving standards and common
courtesy have gone completely out of the window.

Perhaps it’s just my age but, away from the cameras, never before have
I experienced so much arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous
driving of a sort that routinely passes for being called a motorist
nowadays.

The average stressed out motorists out there seem to behave nowadays
in a way that betrays a great need of (or soon to be in great need of)
of a regular dose of beta-blockers.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In article
,
allantracy wrote:

As a driver of many years, I don¹t know how other drivers feel but in
recent years, parallel with the spread of the cameras, my perception,
for what it¹s worth, has been that driving standards and common
courtesy have gone completely out of the window.

Perhaps it¹s just my age but, away from the cameras, never before have
I experienced so much arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous
driving of a sort that routinely passes for being called a motorist
nowadays.

I think part of it (and I also think I've said this here before) is that
the installation of speed cameras and the reduction in traffic police
out on the road has given the message to some people that speed limits
only matter where there's a camera.

Sam

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On 27/07/2010 13:53, Graeme wrote:

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference between 30
and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras do you see in
30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise enough revenue. It is
that level of cynicism that has brought them into disrepute.

On the contrary, there are a number in Bradford metropolitan area that
specifically force people to do 30 mph on roads where their speed would
naturally drift upwards to the detriment of road safety.

For instance, on the B6144 Whetley Hill, there's a camera at the steep
point on the hill where if you leave the car in 3rd gear without braking
the speed tends to drift up to about 37 mph or so. So putting a camera
there forces people to slow down to 30 mph at a point where there are
always a lot of pedestrians around (because it's a densely-populated
residential area with a number of shops at the bottom of the hill).

To me the logic of this camera is impeccable in road safety terms.

Another example in Bradford is on the A657 Leeds Road coming into
Shipley from the east. Here, there is a long downhill stretch where
your speed would naturally tend to drift upwards if you don't brake or
change down. A succession of cameras forces motorists to watch their speed.

Again, I can't fault the logic in road safety terms of locating those
cameras there.

There are other examples in the Bradford area where a camera enforces a
speed limit of 40 or 50 mph, and again at each location the logic in
road safety terms is excellent.

And Bradford also uses illuminating speed limit signs at points where
people might naturally drive a bit quicker than the speed limit, but
where there is a less severe road safety issue.

So they're using "horses for courses", enforcement cameras at the more
dangerous points and illuminating speed limit signs in less dangerous
locations. They wouldn't do this if they were aiming to generate
revenue, rather than enhance road safety.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

It is still a simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

I'm not arguing for anything. Cameras are devices to take pictures.
These particular cameras only do so if they detect speeding vehicles.
What more need be said? What questions do you think need be asked?

The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted the
perception of what is safe. As far as the cameras are concerned an idiot
driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving all over the
road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady 60mph on a road designed
for 70+ but somebody has decided to designated as a 50 limit for no logical
reason is defined as driving dangerously.

Cameras do not pass judgments about what is safe. They are not
intelligent entities.

There are many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the
cause of some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people
have to respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real
difference that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference
between 30 and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras
do you see in 30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise
enough revenue. It is that level of cynicism that has brought them into
disrepute.

I reckon that I encounter more speed cameras in 30 limits than any other
limits. Cheshire police often set up a mobile camera a couple of miles from
where I live, to protect a 30 limit on the A54. The nearest fixed cameras
to where I live protect 40 limits. T'other day I went to Stalybridge and
the cameras I encountered (as far as I can recall them) were protecting
limits of 60, 50, 30, 30, 30, 30, 50, 50, 60 respectively.

How many of those 30mph limits were genuine urban areas with
houses/shops/schools and pedestrians in close proximity and how many were on
through routes that just happened to be in the appropriate urban sanitary
district?

They were all urban, in Ashton-under-Lyne and Stalybridge. Without
retracing my steps, I couldn't say how many of them were next to
pavements that had railings, but they were all next to pavements, with
all sorts of buildings next to them.

But your question is an irrelevant one. It's not up to me to speculate
about the motives of the people who set the limits and/or positioned the
cameras, and life's too short to do so. It's up to me to drive with due
care and attention, with consideration for other road users and to
observe the speed limits and other instructions that are signalled by
signs, road markings and lights.

Cheshire's not so bad for them, but there seem to be a superfluity in
Staffs.

Different areas do things differently it seems.

Yes, the vicinity of Stoke on Trent is not for inattentive drivers.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309765.html
(37 109 at Warrington Bank Quay, Jun 1985)

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

It is still a simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

I'm not arguing for anything. Cameras are devices to take pictures.
These particular cameras only do so if they detect speeding vehicles.
What more need be said? What questions do you think need be asked?

Did you not read the next para?

The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted the
perception of what is safe. As far as the cameras are concerned an idiot
driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving all over the
road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady 60mph on a road
designed for 70+ but somebody has decided to designated as a 50 limit for
no logical reason is defined as driving dangerously.

Cameras do not pass judgments about what is safe. They are not
intelligent entities.

I never said they were.


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Jul 27, 6:59*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:
[snip]
But your question is an irrelevant one. It's not up to me to speculate
about the motives of the people who set the limits and/or positioned the
cameras, and life's too short to do so. [...]

Is it for anyone else to do so, or are they also barred from pondering
on such things?

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 27, 6:59*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:
[snip]
But your question is an irrelevant one. It's not up to me to speculate
about the motives of the people who set the limits and/or positioned the
cameras, and life's too short to do so. [...]

Is it for anyone else to do so,

If anyone asked me for advice, I would suggest it's not for them to do
while they are attempting to steer their vehicle through our
traffic-filled road system, only to do that long list of things that you
snipped.

or are they also barred from pondering on such things?

I don't know where you got the word "barred" from. I certainly didn't
use it.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9628985.html
(ARC shunter 3101 at Loughborough in 1980 - as she always seemed to be)